Field v. Copping, Agnew & Scales
| Decision Date | 21 October 1911 |
| Citation | 65 Wash. 359,118 P. 329 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | FIELD v. COPPING, AGNEW & SCALES. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; A. E. Rice Judge.
Action by John A. Field against Copping, Agnew & Scales. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed, with directions.
B. H. Rhodes and Forney & Ponder, for appellants.
Dysart & Ellsbury and C. D. Cunningham, for respondent.
This is an action for the recovery of rent. There was a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants have appealed.
The following is an epitome of the facts found by the court: On the 15th day of January, 1909, Alex McEachern was the owner of the property upon which the suit for rent is based, and on that day executed, acknowledged, and delivered to Richards & Cunningham, a copartnership, a lease upon the same for three years from the 1st day of January, 1909, at the monthly rental of $30, payable in advance. The lease provides The lease was recorded on the 21st day of January, 1909. The lessees went into the possession and occupancy of the leased premises, and continued their occupancy until about April, 1909, when Cunningham sold his interest in the lease and the business conducted upon the premises to his copartner, Richards, who continued the business and the occupancy until the 22d day of April, 1909, when he sold his stock of goods and the lease to the appellants, who have since occupied the leased premises. The appellants paid the rent until the 15th day of March, 1910, and since that time have tendered and paid into court the rent each month conformably to the lease. The respondent has refused since March 15, 1910, to accept the rent as stipulated in the lease. On January 11, 1910, the lessor, McEachern, sold and conveyed the premises to the respondent and W. B. Richards. The latter, on February 9th following, sold and conveyed his interest therein to the respondent. The court further found: * * *' The original lease was delivered to the appellants. On February 15, 1910, the respondent, after having accepted the rent as fixed by the lease for the months of January and February, served a written notice upon the appellants, stating that from and after March 15th he would charge them $45 per month as rental. The court also found that the respondent had no notice that the appellants were claiming to hold under the lease until on or about February 15, 1910, that the appellants have no valid assignment of the lease, that $45 per month is a reasonable rental, and that the respondent was entitled to a judgment, on that basis. A judgment was entered accordingly.
We think the judgment should be reversed on the facts found by the court. The finding that the respondent did not know that the appellants were claiming under the lease is a conclusion of law, and, as we shall point out later, an erroneous one upon the facts found. However, if it be treated as a finding of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Erickson
...or mortgagees] of whatsoever rights a prudent and reasonable inquiry would have revealed’ " (quoting Field v. Copping, Agnew & Scales, 65 Wash. 359, 362, 118 P. 329 (1911) )).¶ 57 Although purchasers or mortgagees may often be charged with notice of inspecting property and discovering that ......
-
OTR v. Flakey Jake's, Inc.
...assignment, it would most likely be estopped to do so. D'Ambrosio v. Nardone, 72 Wash. 172, 129 P. 1092 (1913); Field v. Copping, Agnew & Scales, 65 Wash. 359, 118 P. 329 (1911). Upon learning of the assignment, OTR had the option to declare a forfeiture or to recognize Selig as its tenant.......
-
Kane v. Klos
...of fact control inconsistent conclusions of law. Ferris v. Blumhardt, 48 Wash.2d 395, 293 P.2d 935; Field v. Copping, Agnew & Scales, 65 Wash. 359, 118 P. 329, 36 L.R.A.,N.S., 488. We come then to the merits of the cross-appeal. The evidence of the secret profit is so clear that the matter ......
-
Peoples Nat. Bank of Washington v. Birney's Enterprises, Inc.
...knew is, indeed, a question of fact, but the legal significance of what he knew is a question of law. See e.g., Field v. Copping, Agnew & Scales, 65 Wash. 359, 118 P. 329 (1911) (finding that appellant did not know of a possessor's claim an erroneous conclusion of law in view of the physica......
-
§17.11 - Transfers of Interest by Landlord or Tenant
...of the assignment, then the landlord has no legal remedy on account of the prohibited assignment. Field v. Copping, Agnew & Scales, 65 Wash. 359, 118 P. 329 (1911). When a tenant improperly assigned its lease in violation of the lease terms, the landlord could declare the assignment void an......
-
Table of Cases
...(1984): 20.4(6)(b) Fidelity Mutual Savings Bank v. Mark, 112 Wn.2d 47, 767 P.2d 1382 (1989): 20.14(8)(g) Field v. Copping, Agnew & Scales, 65 Wash. 359, 118 P. 329 (1911): 17.11(1)(b) Fields' Estate, In re, 141 Wash. 526, 252 P. 534 (1927): 20.4(1)(b)1515-1519 Lakeview Boulevard Condo. Ass'......